The Glenn Inquiry gives us a much better idea of how the little ones were treated in the past

June 17, 2014

Thanks to Lindsay Mitchell (here), Alf has some idea of what to expect when he gets around to reading the report from the Glenn Inquiry which has become the talk of the town.

She points out that a large majority of submitters were female and we are hence given the resounding impression that the overwhelming problem lies with men.

It seems she thinks otherwise and Alf is tempted to agree.

But that’s not all. She adds:

Oh and the colonist-blaming conveniently pops up.

Mitchell quotes this bit of the report.

Māori were once a people who held in high esteem their tamariki (children) and wāhine (women) because of the treasured roles they had in their whānau, hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe). Nevertheless, colonisation brought with it new ways, including privileging the place of men, which rendered women and children as their possessions (Section 4, p127).

Read the rest of this entry »


Hoots mon – it’s a bloody big fish

March 10, 2009

Throw away your history books. Or at least rip out the chapter on the discovery of America.

The Telegraph today reports

The 15th century explorer who opened up the American continents to Europe was actually called Pedro Scotto – not Christopher Columbus – and his family originally hailed from Scotland, a Spanish historian has claimed.

Alfonso Ensenat de Villalonga has disputed conventionally-accepted narratives on the explorer’s origins – that he was the son of a weaver in Genoa, Italy, or that he was from Catalonia or Galicia in Spain.

In fact, he was from Genoa, but he was “the son of shopkeepers not weavers and he was baptised Pedro not Christopher,” Mr Villalonga told Spain’s ABC newspaper on Sunday.

And his family name was Scotto, and was not Italian but of Scottish origin.

Alf is thinking of bringing this Villalonga bloke out to Newzild to check out a theory he has long harboured: that Maui was a Scotsman who set out to hook the Lake Ness Monster. He lost his way, finished up in the South Pacific, dropped his line, and – yep. You know the rest.

If the theory be true, there will be no need to persist with the treaty. Both parties to it – you see – were British.